Suppose you are a prosecutor who thinks it is possible that Maurice in his role as CEO of a brokerage firm, has stolen money from his customers, who are primarily middle-class retail investors who are investing portions of their life savings

1. Suppose you are a prosecutor who thinks it is possible that Maurice (pronounced, in the English manner, like the name “Morris”), in his role as CEO of a brokerage firm, has stolen money from his customers, who are primarily middle-class retail investors who are investing portions of their life savings. If you charge him and his company with RICO violations, you know that he is likely to plea bargain because otherwise, his assets and those of the company may be frozen by the court. As part of the plea bargain, you might be able to get him to disclose evidence about other people who might have taken part in this criminal activity. But you do not have any hard evidence at this point, certainly not enough evidence to win a criminal conviction. Would such an indictment be ethical? Is it worth it to harm Maurice for the chance of protecting thousands of innocent investors? Think about some of the ethical theorists we discussed in Chapter 2 and what they might say about this situation.

2. What do think of the fundamental fairness of the “dual sovereign” exception to the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy? Do you think that it is fair that two or more separate sovereigns can try a defendant for the same activity or conduct? Do you think that there are circumstances when a dual sovereign prosecution is appropriate and proper? When it is inappropriate or improper? Sometimes our opinions might be colored by the circumstances of the particular situation.